Post Soviet Secessionism

The USSR’s dissolution resulted in the creation of not only fifteen recognized states but also of four non-recognized statelets: Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria. Their polities comprise networks with state-like elements. Since the early 1990s, the four pseudo-states have been continously dependent on their sponsor countries (Russia, Armenia), and contesting the territorial integrity of their parental nation-states Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Moldova. In 2014, the outburst of Russia-backed separatism in Eastern Ukraine led to the creation of two more para-states, the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR), whose leaders used the experience of older de facto states. In 2020, this growing network of de facto states counted an overall population of more than 4 million people. The essays collected in this volume address such questions as: How do post-Soviet de facto states survive and continue to grow? Is there anything specific about the political ecology of Eastern Europe that provides secessionism with the possibility to launch state-making processes in spite of international sanctions and counteractions of their parental states? How do secessionist movements become embedded in wider networks of separatism in Eastern and Western Europe? What is the impact of secessionism and war on the parental states? The contributors are Jan Claas Behrends, Petra Colmorgen, Bruno Coppieters, Nataliia Kasianenko, Alice Lackner, Mikhail Minakov, and Gwendolyn Sasse.

Why did the Soviet Union break up, whereas the Russian Federation has so far held together in the face of ostensibly similar secession crises? To what extent is regional separatism a product of economic incentives or local ethnic identity? Few areas of the world display a greater complexity of ethnic relations than the post Soviet empire, and there are few with greater long term strategic significance. Drawing on political science, sociology, and anthropology, this study asks why political elites in some regions in post-Soviet Russia have shown more of a proclivity for separatism from Moscow than others.

This book explores the differing treatment of Russian minorities in the non-Russian republics which seceded from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Providing detailed case studies, it explains why intervention by Russia occurred in the case of Ukraine, despite Ukraine’s benevolent and inclusive treatment of the large Russian minority, whereas in other republics with less benevolent approaches to minorities intervention did not occur, for example Kazakhstan, where discrimination against the Russian minority increased over time, and Latvia, where the country on its accession to the European Union was deemed to have good minority rights protection, despite a record of discrimination against the Russian minority. Throughout the book emphasises the importance of the perceptions of the republic government regarding the interaction between the minority’s kin-state and the minority, the role that minorities played within the nation-building process and after secession, and the dual threat coming from both the domestic and international spheres.

As a concept of international law, the right to self-determination is widely renowned for its lack of clarity. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a liberal and a nationalist tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or 'domesticate' the nationalist conception by limiting it to 'abnormal' situations, that is to colonialism in the sense of 'alien subjugation, domination and exploitation'. Essentially, this distinction between 'normal' and 'abnormal' situations has since, the distinction was made, been the heart of the matter in the legal discourse on the right to self-determination, with the important qualification regarding the need to preserve existing borders. This book situates Russia's approach to the right to self-determination in that discourse by way of a regional comparison vis-a-vis a 'Western' or European perspective, and a temporal comparison with the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union's role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the book analyses Russia's relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation, illustrated by a total of seven case studies on the conflicts over Abkhazia, Chechnya, Crimea, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Tatarstan, and Transnistria. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the right to self-determination, it is suggested that Russia's approach may be best understood not only in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric, but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law.

This book analyses cases of incomplete secession after separatist wars and what this means for relations between central governments and de facto states. The work explores the interplay between violence and power by examining the micro-dynamics inherent in the process of escalation between separatists and central governments. These dynamics affect not only the security interactions between these entities, but also the character of political and governance relations that are built in the aftermath of secessionist war. Th book provides comprehensive analyses of the evolution of post-conflict relations between the Republic of Moldova and Transnistria and between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Beyond these empirical and conceptual examples, the book contributes to a key debate in International Relations that addresses the relationship between democratization, nationalism and violence, and its applicability to the study of escalation in the post-Soviet space. This book will be of much interest to students of secession, statehood, conflict studies, democratisation, post-Soviet politics and International Relations in general.

The right to self-determination is renowned for its lack of clear interpretation. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a 'classic' and a 'romantic' tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or 'domesticate' the romantic version by limiting it to 'abnormal' situations, that is cases of 'alien subjugation, domination and exploitation'. This book situates Russia's engagement with the right to self-determination in this debate. It shows that Russia follows a distinct approach to self-determination that diverges significantly from the consensus view in international state practice and scholarship, partly due to a lasting legacy of the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union's role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the study analyses Russia's relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation. Drawing on analysis of all seven major secessionist conflicts in the former Soviet space and a detailed study of Russian sources and scholarship, it traces how Russian engagement with self-determination has changed over the past three decades. Ultimately, the book argues that Russia's approach to the right of peoples to self-determination should not only be understood in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric but in terms of a continuously assumed regional hegemony and exceptionalism, based on balance-of-power considerations.